Another "gay roommate" thread?

Student Lounge College Life
261

<p>"Oh, really? The entire post? Just because I fudged that thing at the end? That was a mistake, which I owned up to. Now address the rest of it, because the rest isn’t an outright lie kiddo. Just because one part was in error doesn’t discount the entire post. Especially considering the part that was IN error was a mistake on the site, and not in my evidence. Don’t try to discredit things like that, it makes you look like you’re too afraid to address what I said. "</p>

<p>Too afraid? I addressed this stuff in posts 202 and 229.</p>

262

<p>“You wanna argue for polygamy too? Go right ahead, guess what? You just argued for it, in ten years it’ll happen and I’m just fine with it.”</p>

<p>Itachirumon,</p>

<p>Just curious, what happens when a polygamous marraige (let’s say 1 husband and 3 wives, or 3 women and 2 men) ends in divorce?</p>

<p>Who gets the “couples” assets? Who’s entitled to property, savings, ect.? </p>

<p>Or how about this, what happens when one of the members of the “couple” passes away, does the surviving “spouses” all chair their SSI/Pension? </p>

<p>Better yet, what if 3 out of the 4 members of the marriage die, does the surviving “spouse” receive those 3 SSI?</p>

<p>Even more serious, say a polygamous marriage (3 women, 1 man) all have children (each female has at least one child) and one of the member of the marriage decide she wants a divorce. Who then all has custody rights to the child of the women leaving the marriage? Is it then strictly biological rights? What if the biological mother doesn’t want to allow her children brought up in a polygamous household, can she prevent the biological father from having custody rights to the child, even though she conceived the while legally married to 3 other people?</p>

<p>You may scoff at those questions, but those would be the legal situations that would result in polygamy. If you think divorces, custody battles and estate rights are complicated now, wait until you introduce extra parties (and would there be a limit on the amount of member allowed in a marriage?).</p>

<p>Gay marriage obviously doesn’t have all those complex issues, however…I think most people would say, “Ok, the buck stop here” and eventually HAVE to impose limits on what marriage legally is/can be. </p>

<p>For some people, that “buck” stops at homosexual marraiges, for others that “buck” stops at marriage being between one male and one female.</p>

<p>It’s an argument that I’m sure will make you puke in your shoes, but every adult in our country is allowed to get married. The stipulation is that it must be with a member of the opposite sex…OK, you may now take a break from reading so you can go whurl.</p>

<p>Now don’t go form a judgment regarding what I’m saying. I’m not necessarily against gay marriage, what I’m against is federally mandated gay marriage. I feel it’s a state issue and the federal government really shouldn’t be getting involved.</p>

263

<p>Well #229 is essentially invalid, because all it’s saying is you’ve “already addressed” that post in other posts without referencing the “other posts” you apparantly made about the subject. You never really addressed anything.</p>

<p>Post #202 says:

</p>

<p>I’m going to go through this, yet again, and explain why this is full of *****. I’ll go slow, maybe you’ll follow this time, because it’s been explained to you at least six times already.

  1. You were called on shifting your argument. EVERY time raiderade made a valid argument against “Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman” you would say “You’re misconstruing my argument, I’m arguing that Marriage is for Procreation.” </p>

<p>Then you would rewrite your argument for Marriage is for Procreation. And so raiderade would make a valid argument against “Marriage is for Procreation” and you would say “you’re misconstruing my argument, I’m arguing that Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman.” Then you’d rewrite your argument for Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman. </p>

<p>You see that? By switching between the two, you refused to address the criticisms raiderade brought up. That’s what was meant by switching your argument, you refused to address the points that were being made. You just repeated yourself endlessly. </p>

<p>You’re really arguing for both, so I told you to stick to both. Of course when someone made an argument against both, you either took one small inconsequental part of their post, deemed it wrong, and extrapolated that wrongness to their entire argument (as, for example, you’ve REPEATEDLY done with me calling you brainwashed). </p>

<p>Using that one piece as an excuse to waylay their entire argument and not address the other, VALID points they had made. </p>

<ol>
<li>I want to highlight a part of your post, again, to point something out to you.

</li>
</ol>

<p>You never showed “why those are wrong” you just pointed out that they were a minority that you guys just didn’t care to ban from marriage. That’s not an argument against them. The point stands, if marriage is for procreation then infertile couples and asexual couples can’t get married and post-menopasual people ought to have their marriages nullified. These people can get married, THEREFORE marriage is NOT for procreation. It’s. That. Simple. All you did, ALL you did, (rather, all your article did) was say “well… yes, those people exist, and we allow them to get married, but it’s because they’re man and woman.” That’s argument shifting again.</p>

<ol>
<li>I’m gonna build off of two and provide a counter argument. A man and a woman decide to get married, one of them comes out as transsexual and undergoes FTM/MTF sexual reassignment surgery. They are now a same-sex couple for all technical purposes. They also can no longer reproduce. Should we nullify their marriage? They’re infertile, and they’re married, but NOW they’re a same-sex couple. No, right? Therefore your argument is, again, invalid.</li>
</ol>

264

<p>@GovAffairs - Obviously those things would have to be worked out through the legal system as things went, these are the kinds of thorny legal issues that would come with the territory. Those things would be decided and THEN we’d have precedent. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m gonna bring up something you aren’t gonna like here. Slavery. We decided the government should be mostly “hands-off” about slavery and let it be decided on a state-by-state basis. The problem with that is that it assumes that marriage equality and marriage banning are a simple dichotomy and each valid. To me the question is the same as saying “Should we gas the Jews, or shouldn’t we?” It isn’t a Coke vs. Pepsi issue, it’s a “This is the right choice” and “This is the wrong choice” issue. Alabama saying no-no to marriage equality is not an equally valid choice to Massachusetts saying yes to it. One of those choices is right and the other is very clearly mistaken. </p>

<p>The government has to step in and mandate it now because the states decided they weren’t going to play nice and give people the rights they deserved. Furthermore, some states decided to go in the opposite direction, and directly enshrine unconstitutional laws in their state constitutions to attempt to discriminate against LGBTs. If the states would do their jobs, the government wouldn’t have to. “States Rights” is a dangerous thing, because some states are being governed by… well let’s use Wisconsin’s anti-union bill so it’s more polite… Crazy people. Some states are being governed by dangerously crazy people who have absolutely no business governing what shoe they put on first, let alone an entire state because they clearly have no legal knowledge to speak of. (let’s also use the Texas Board of Education fiasco last year which anybody with a working brain can see was stupid as hell). States Rights lets these people enshrine discrimination into their constitutions. That cannot happen, so the government has to step in and slap them, say “no! You are NOT allowed to do that!” And we need to have the ability to do that.</p>

265

<p>I disagree with your slavery comparison.</p>

<p>A federal mandate/ban on slavery was necessary because it was a blatant violation of civil rights, nearly every civil right.</p>

<p>Marriage is not a civil right, it’s a government benefit. </p>

<p>Marriage is accessible to every American adult. A gay person can be married, just not to a member of their own sex. So even if marriage were a civil right, civil rights wouldn’t be violated, because the person is choosing not to enter the government benefit under it’s legal requirements (Man and Woman).</p>

<p>I know very well that there are opposing arguments and I respect them, however the legality of this situation is anything but clear - it’s a very murky and clouded area that has legal experts, judges and even our own President (a very bright legal mind) unsure of it’s legal aspects. </p>

<p>Concerning your remarks about Wisconsin, well it’s starting to seem like you just label any view you don’t agree with as crazy or homophobic. Your views on state rights are very disturbing and border on fascist.</p>

<p>Remember, federal mandates can work against you as well. Anyone for any federal mandates needs to re-think their position, because at some point they could be on the other end of the federal government imposing their will on them - and their tune will change pretty quickly.</p>

<p>Also, you need to pull yourself back a little bit because your extreme arguments actually make people question your credibility. Your statement comparing gay-marriage to “gasing the Jews” is disingenuous at best and will only draw eye rolls and paint you as unreasonable.</p>

<p>Also, your statement regarding polygamy and the surrounding legal issues, “They just need to get them worked out” shows nothing but naivety. Some issues can’t just be worked out, sometimes you just have to say, “Ok, this doesn’t work and you can’t do it.” This is especially true when children are involved - no reason to let these ridiculous situations occur just so satisfy some idealogical whoie.</p>

266

<p>Slavery?
Hitler?
Jews?</p>

<p>you lost me</p>

267

<p>I’m pretty sure Itachirumon invoked Godwins Law on the “Gas the Jews” statement.</p>

<p>Discussion is now over.</p>

268

<p>

</p>

<p>They passed the bill illegally, and tried to violate a court order demanding they yield. How is THAT not Fascist? They tried to violate Seperation of Powers, that’s like Constitutional Law/US Government 101 Day 1 stuff. That’s the stuff they usually assume you should KNOW already in the intro class. That people who are already into their careers are trying to break those rules suggests that they’re dangerously crazy people. </p>

<p>I used slavery to show how a government taking a hands-off “let the states decide” approach didn’t work. It’s a perfectly apt comparison. It’s also to illustrate how just like being black, being gay is not a choice. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Loving v. Virginia. I can also cite Baker v. Nelson because we only lost that one on a technicality that, were it retried today, would not exist. I’m going to also be a bit of an ass and cite Perry v. Schwartznegger because of Judge Walker’s findings of fact. It’s still in legal limbo until the 9th and possibly the SCOTUS rule on it, but until that happens his findings of fact are still… well, factual. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>But this ignores the fact that LGBTs want that legal requirement changed to “two consenting adults” (let’s not get into polygamy here okay? There aren’t enough precedents to address it and it’d only be used as a slippery slope fallacy to get a gut-charged reaction). That doesn’t make any mention of why those are the legal requirements or why they can’t be altered. That’s what’s being argued. That it’s a civil right is one of the ways it’s being argued. BECAUSE it’s a civil right, LGBTs should have access to it to marry the consenting partner that they love. If it’s a civil right, then it’s wrong to deny it to someone, if it’s wrong to deny it to someone then these anti-gay laws are unconstitutional, if they’re unconstitutional they’re struck down, if they’re struck down, gays can get married finally.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>■■■■■. I didn’t mention Hitler. Also, the context I was using it in doesn’t qualify for a Godwin kiddo. Not every Nazi/Hitler reference counts as envoking Godwin’s law. I wasn’t calling you “like Hitler” I was using “gassing the Jews” as an EXTREME example of where there is very clearly one right answer and one wrong answer. One that you couldn’t try to argue against. Genocide is something that’s VERY clearly wrong. Think about it - I couldn’t have used “It was wrong to kill that person” because you would say “Well, it depends, why’d I kill him?” “It was wrong to shoot the puppy” “What if it was rabid?” “Slavery was wrong” “I agree but states rights” see, you already disagreed with my Slavery premise, so nothing short of “Gassing the Jews” worked as a comparison of something clearly incorrect. It’s not a “well his points are equally valid to yours - all opinions are equal” argument it’s a “his points are valid and yours are invalid” argument. But you’ve noted that I used it three times now, it must REEAAALLLLLY bother you that I used that as a reference.</p>

269

<p>“A gay person can be married, just not to a person of the same sex.”</p>

<p>What? I believe that’s borderline illegal if not flat out illegal. It’s a government benefit? That’s the illegal part. I now pronounce you chuck and larry.</p>

<p>Why marry someone you aren’t in love with? There’s no point in marriage, then. Who has the right to say what’s a right and what isn’t? If two people are in love, why can’t they be married and have the same rights/benefits if they were a homosexual couple versus a heterosexual one? </p>

<p>What’s the problem with allowing same-sex marriage? If you’re against it, don’t get involved in a same sex marriage. Homosexuals aren’t ruining society or exposing your children to horrible things. It’s natural, just like it’s natural for you to be heterosexual. </p>

<p>Anyways, everyone is bisexual. Throughout their lifetime, they lean to one side or the other, or stay in the middle. There’ve been studies on it, but I’m mobile so I can’t look it up. You’re more than welcome to, though.</p>

270

<p>yo, STOP WITH THE LONG POSTS, because i basically skipped of them and realized that they’re the only posts there are</p>

271

<p>Sorry Nervus, the facts aren’t short and sweet. When people are as dangerously misinformed as Anti and Al are, their arguments need to be addressed point by point to make sure their ignorance doesn’t spread.</p>

272

<p>“It’s also to illustrate how just like being black, being gay is not a choice.” </p>

<p>Iticharumon,</p>

<p>First, I will pardon you and your Godwins Law violation as long as we are able to maintain a respectful debate. </p>

<p>I agree it isn’t a choice, but again, comparing it to being black is disingenous.</p>

<p>The causes of sexual orientation is a very undefined topic, unlike being black. A scientist can actually locate the genetic code inside an African America which accounts for their complextion, you cannot do that for homosexuals.</p>

<p>There is no real conclusive evidence to suggest homosexuality is genetic, but again - I do not think it’s a choice. </p>

<p>Science can AT BEST maybe use biological factors to see who MIGHT be predisposed to homosexual traits such as extra testosterone in women, low testosterone in men, or vice versa with estrogen. </p>

<p>However, those biological factors alone do not account for homosexuality and if they did, they would actually be diagnosing homosexuality as a biological disorder - which I’m sure is something you’d not want to label yourself with, correct?</p>

<p>Most theories combine environmental factors into sexuality which makes the most sense. This accounts for both the lack of genetic evidence and for the individual being unable to “stop being gay”, because the individual truly has no choice, just as I don’t really have a choice on being attracted to taller blondes who are athletic or some other guy being attracted to obese women (some are).</p>

<p>I understand and respect your argument regarding changing the definition of marriage from being between man and women, into two consenting adults. I know that is the heart of the argument. </p>

<p>However, more issues spring up. </p>

<p>A common opposing view (other than polygamy and some more absurd ones like marrying dogs) is inter-family marriage. This argument is usually presented as, “Well, what if I want to marry my cousin, should that be legal?” Or, “What if I want to marry mom sister”, or “What if a mother and son want to get married”</p>

<p>Typically, these arguments are written off as ridiculousness and being unreasonable. As well they should be when they are given in such a context, because without proper context they just come off as sillyness.</p>

<p>When addressed, these inter-family marriages are typically rebutted with, “Well, marriages between family members will almost certainly lead to sex, which could lead to pregnancy/offspring and we all know how dangerous that is - a society couldn’t encourage such a practice that actually allows something like that.”</p>

<p>This seems like a pretty reasonable response to a not-so-reasonable question. There is a problem though, what if offspring aren’t possible? I think most of us would agree that offspring shouldn’t be required to be married and millions of married couples chose not to have children or biologically can’t. If the same was so for inter-family marriages, should they be allowed?</p>

<p>Example, one of the parties becomes/is sterile. Or even more persuasive, the couple getting married (lets just say brother and sister) is elderly and the female is beyond child bearing age or has had her uterus removed.</p>

<p>In situations such as those, what do you think? They technically fall into your definition of “Two consenting adults” and they don’t violate the common arguments against inter-family marriages (genetics/mentally disabled offspring), so should these types of unions also be legal?</p>

<p>Like I said in my earlier post, eventually - the bucks gotta stop somewhere. For alot of people having marriage defined as being between a man and woman was where that buck stopped, it’s reasonable and technically doesn’t discriminate against anyone (something I’m sure you’d disagree with) because every adult has access to marriage.</p>

273

<p>I don’t know if this is correct, but I’ve heard that interfamilial marriage is illegal because offspring will be most likely genetically mutated/born with disorders and such. There’s more of a chance for that to happen than with non interfamilial marriage. </p>

<p>Again, I’m not sure if that’s true. I also heard that interfamilial marriage is illegal based off of religious reasons. </p>

<p>Just a side note.</p>

274

<p>^ If you took the time to read my post you would see that I eliminated offspring from the equation for that very reason.</p>

<p>Re-read my post, I put the question in context and even say, “What if the women has her uterus removed or is past the child bearing age.”</p>

275

<p>I read your post before I posted. </p>

<p>I wasn’t trying to refute you, just stating what I was told and seeing if that’s the reasoning other people were given.</p>

276

<p>

</p>

<p>To be fair, I didn’t really violate Godwin’s law, but okay. I mostly use that as an example to show the struggles between LGBTs and Blacks are very similar, there are those who would deny us the blanket term for civil rights… Alveda King comes to mind, but so does Maggie Gallagher. They’ve both been oppressed for things that are innate characteristics that cannot be changed. You and I will probably get along very well because our definitions of homosexuality are essentially identical. It’s not purely biological, and it’s not purely an environmental thing. The nature/nurture can’t be teased apart. From what I’m to understand from the research, some people are born with more of a predisposition in brain structure and testosterone/estrogen and such, this predisposition is then affected upon by environmental factors in a way we can’t really understand.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I tend not to get into it with people because of the incest taboo but barring the genetic reasons, there also isn’t any reason to bar a relationship like that beyond our own personal disgust, which isn’t a valid legal reason. Maybe I’ve been perverted too much by anime but I’ve heard it argued (by my honors cultural anthropology professor no less ((and before anybody tries to slam him, he’s the guy who won the California Community College Professor of the Year 2010 award thingy – as in he knows what he’s talking about)) that the incest taboo doesn’t really have a lot of basis in rationality and is entirely a cultural construct. </p>

<p>If we look at this, the Buck is probably going to eventually stop in about 100-150 years after we’ve legalized Ephebophilic relationships, since age of consent laws have been as low as 13 in other cultures that’ll probably be the last marginalized group. </p>

<p>It kind of seems like we go over the arguments again and again with each marginalized group, doesn’t it? The people in power don’t want to give a group rights, they deny them for some reason, and then (at least in America and Europe) the Bible (or any religion - expanding it worldwide) is used as justification along with some difficult-to-tease-apart prejudices people have. That group finally gets enough scientific backing behind them to launch a fair argument for equality, they’re resisted strongly…resisted moderately…resisted weakly…resisted… begrudgingly accepted… disdainfully accepted… accepted. Then people look back and think “*** were we thinking, discriminating against X-group? Man, were we ignorant!”</p>

277

<p>Well, I’ll rephrase an opinion I wrote here in 2009. The debate about “gay roommates” is usually misplaced.</p>

<p>Firstly, sharing a private space with someone else is very different than sharing public life or social functions. Having a roommate has a “sexual modesty and avoidance” component as much as having sex-separated bathrooms in a shopping mall - but a far larger extent.</p>

<p>Let’s think: most guys and girls wouldn’t be comfortable having an opposite gender roommate not because they have boobs or not, or because of their voice’s pitch, but because of the presumption that your roommate should be someone who are not generally attracted for you gender, sexually speaking, hence being someone you can change in front of without embarrassments. I am sure I have a lot of female friend I have no flirt/romantic/sexual interest (and vice-versa) whatsoever, and we both know that, yet I don’t think we’d be comfortable suddenly sharing the same room - and I am a mostly no-frills person who make no big deals of it.</p>

<p>Secondly, having openly gay roommates brings issues that can be easily compounded with the sexual option card playing, if any. For instance, I could discuss with a fellow straight dude about sexiling or his excessively spacious girlfriend, without he complaining I’m being “anti-straight” or “heterophobe”. Chances of misunderstandings grow a lot with a gay roommate.</p>

<p>I personally would feel very uncomfortable having a gay roommate. I have gay classmates with whom I work on projects, and some I probably don’t even know (as they don’t make a point or don’t become “gay lifestyle ambassadors”), and things are fine that way. However, I can’t put up with a dude bringing another dude and starting fondling and kissing him on the bed next to mine as I could put up with a roommate engaging in such behavior with a fellow girl, for instance. I would also feel compelled to behave as if a strange unknown straight girl was there, meaning less freedom in small practical things and so.</p>

<p>Finally, you have the issue of overly extroverted, self-declared, flamboyant annoying gay people, which is just an extension of the usual straight stupid jerk who brags around. For those types of gays, I have nothing but annoyance towards. They had better stay out of my way, I can’t stand them as much as I can’t stand, on a long-term proximate relationship, the typical straight party animal folk.</p>

278

<p>I would like you to know that I really don’t oppose gay-marriage. I just don’t like gay-marriage if it came in the form of a federal mandate. I’m actually in favor of decriminalizing marijuana, but just as gay-marriage, I wouldn’t be in favor of it being federally mandated.</p>

<p>If gay-marriage was legalized in my state I’d be rather unconcerned. My feelings for the issue run luke warm.</p>

<p>I’m not gay, I have no close gay friends nor have I ever really exposed myself to gay culture. I have a single gay relative who I always liked until he continuously sent me invites on facebook for some show entitled Adonis Thunder Gawds at a gay night club, now things are wierd between us.</p>

<p>Because I’m rather disconnected with the gay community, I feel my opinion holds a bit of water. I’m not blinded by passion for either side, because neither outcome really means crap to me. My honest opinion is that marriage isn’t a right, that most of the desired benefits could be achieved through a civil union (hospital visitation for example) but if a state independently wants to allow gay-marriage they should be granted that sovereignty as long as it’s done democratically.</p>

<p>Any objection I have to gay-marriage comes from issues related to health insurance, SSI, pensions, ect. For example, if a guy marries a guy, the idea of one of them gaining the others pension makes me uneasy, ditto a SSI check. I can’t put a good theory together as to why, but it just doesn’t pass the eye ball test. </p>

<p>I hate to keep going back to my “where does the buck stop” analogy but I think it makes alot of sense. Most people just use a quick “reasonableness” test and ask themselves, “Is this reasonable?” I think for many people, defining marriage between a man and a female - opposite genders that are biologically designed to attract and mate, is reasonable. It’s a pretty good place for a the “buck” to stop. I think passing it further just creates more problems and opens more worm-cans. I’m a believer in the “toothpaste” theory, once toothpaste comes out of the bottle - you can’t put it back in. </p>

<p>Call it a slippery-slope if you like, but I call it precedent. If you set a precedent that marriage can be an open-ended and anyone can marry anyone as long as they are consenting adults, then eventually the whole institution becomes meaningless.</p>

279

<p>

But most of the benefits can not be achieved through a civil union…lol.</p>

280

<p>

Sorry, but I have to get this out… LMAO.</p>